Could Intel finally have a winner?

by **PraiseA||ah** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:14 pm

Let me just clarify - I am not saying the entire performance gain rests on DDR2. I'm saying that is a part of it. I also said that the next generation is part of it.
From what I've read about AMD's next generation is that it too is going to use DDR2 on top of all the other bells and whistles (figuratively speaking) of the new architecture.
So yes, I do think the RAM has a part to play but I'm NOT saying it's all attributable to the RAM.
Read the page I linked to on that article.

by **JimmyTango** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:16 pm

Originally posted by Major SONAR

In the end this competition will only reward the consumer.

Bingo.

I do not go by 'fanboy-ism'(AMD, Intel, Nvidia, ATI), I go by who offers the best when I go to upgrade. Last two times Intel offered the best bang for the buck(highly overclockable CPU's for little money).

Currently that crown is AMD's, and if I were to be upgrading right now, it would be with a socket 939 Opty hands down. However, I do not need to upgrade yet as my P4 2.4c is still running all games and apps perfectly fine clocked around 3.4 gig. At time of purchase, you could not get a 3+ gig CPU for anywhere near what I paid for that 2.4c.

by **JimmyTango** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:20 pm

New Intel super CPU cooler:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/03/08/intel_liquid_cooler/

by **=ender=** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:21 pm

Originally posted by Major SONAR
In the end this competition will only reward the consumer.

Exactly. This kind of competition only results in better products and/or pricing for the lot of us. This should be interesting to keep an eye on.

by **Horsepower** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:40 am

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Bingo.

I do not go by 'fanboy-ism'(AMD, Intel, Nvidia, ATI), I go by who offers the best when I go to upgrade. Last two times Intel offered the best bang for the buck(highly overclockable CPU's for little money).

Currently that crown is AMD's, and if I were to be upgrading right now, it would be with a socket 939 Opty hands down. However, I do not need to upgrade yet as my P4 2.4c is still running all games and apps perfectly fine clocked around 3.4 gig. At time of purchase, you could not get a 3+ gig CPU for anywhere near what I paid for that 2.4c.

i thihk this is a man after my own heart.

this is exactly how i determine my upgrades. who is going to give me the best bang for my buck?

btw, i'm running an Intel 2.4c @ 3.0ghz on a stock Intel cooler.

would go much higher if i bought a better cooler.

by **TChicken** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:42 am

Wow the intel wins by 10-30 % over amd... actually, 10% isn't really that super exciting. Anyway, every time I'm looking at upgrades AMD has intel firmly beat in price/performance ratio, and I'm looking forward to amds response more than whatever it is intel is trying to sell. Not that I'm actively looking to upgrade though.

by **PraiseA||ah** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:17 am

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716

An updated article.

Of particular note (if only to myself) and relevant to some conversations we've had here is a small chart wich shows the difference in performance for RAM timings. There is a small difference seen with DDR2. I would think there would be an even smaller difference with slower RAM/CPU combinations.

The performance gain for the new Intel chip was actually around 20% over AMD's. They initially ran some tests wrong and had to re-do them. They also said in the conclusion more or less what I have said (or tried to say).

by **Major SONAR** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:43 am

I'm glad to see Anandtech rerun their benchmarks. That certainly lends validity to their performance benchmarks.

we’re still seeing a bit over a 20% increase in performance over an overclocked Athlon 64 FX-60

Some of the benchmarks do show a 30% increase in performance and this is against an "overclocked" FX-60.

It’s also worth noting that the 2.66GHz E6700 we previewed here is simply a high end mainstream part, it is not an Extreme Edition flavor of Conroe. At 2.8 or 3.0GHz, a Conroe EE would offer even stronger performance than what we’ve seen here.

I don't know who could afford the EE "extreme" edition of this chip, but I would assume performance would be even better than these benchmarks.

I'm not an Intel fanboy or anything, but the initial benchmarks do show a substantial jump in performance. I think Intel might have a winner here. I'm very interested to see the new AMD AM2 chip, but I would be suprised to see this amount of performance jump.

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:36 am

That is one of the other interesting things, the Extreme Edition is to go against the FX series, yet they are not using an Extreme Edition against the FX series, but a 'regular' higher speed chip.

I think i read that they are going to start at 1.8 Gig. If any of the lower clocked proc's are like the Opty 146/144 or the Intel 2.4c or 1.6a, Intel will over take the Otpy's as the best bang for the buck available(where I like to buy my CPU's). This is what I am most interested in: how these overclock!

And if Intel can get the cooler to market for around $50..................

by **JimmyTango** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:41 pm

To help settle it:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2741&p=5

AM2 test rigs vs 939 test rigs. performance boost to DDR2 is no where near the boost that Intel's new CPU gives.

by **PraiseA||ah** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:03 pm

Yes.. I've been keeping up on the news. Still I'm going to wait until they are testing the actual chips they will be selling.

by **JimmyTango** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:48 pm

It will improve, some of the tests reek of beta hardware(in one the DDR2-400 comes in below everything, even DDR1-400).

Still, AMD's have never been big memory bandwidth hungry procs, when Intials have been since the first P4 hit the shelves and couldn't divide properly.

Could Intel finally have a winner?

Who is online